Accuracy in General too Low for My Tastes


General Discussion

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.

Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

Speaking of which Mark's also noted that monster skills are all higher than intended at many levels, and will likely be adjusted. Whether that adjustment is sufficient is a matter of some debate, but it's something people should definitely be aware of.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:


If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.

And then we get the million threads about "my specialized character can't do anything outside his specialization".

Personally I feel that a base of 50-50 against same level opponents is perfectly fine,
One of the goals of this edition is to reduce the rocket tag combat, but it seem that some of the people requiring higher to hit base values want exactly that.
"I win initiative, the enemy get to do nothig and I win the fight."
For them it can be fun, for me it is annoying and boring,


Diego Rossi wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.

And then we get the million threads about "my specialized character can't do anything outside his specialization".

Personally I feel that a base of 50-50 against same level opponents is perfectly fine,
One of the goals of this edition is to reduce the rocket tag combat, but it seem that some of the people requiring higher to hit base values want exactly that.
"I win initiative, the enemy get to do nothig and I win the fight."
For them it can be fun, for me it is annoying and boring,

Well if you want high accuracy but longer combats you can just increase hp val-

"Enemies have bloated hp!"

Lets not even get into what happens to the jokers who run around specializing in the save/lose magic and are wanting crit fails on a 15+ from the bad guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Paizo has to please both these guys...

Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.

Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.

As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.

Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.

As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.

The problems with that are

A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.

I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.

I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.

Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.

It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.

A fight where you always hit, but can be oneshotted in turn, is terrible.

It's exactly the rocket tag pf2 wants to eliminate.

50/50 baseline allows for epicness, tactics, teamwork and sustainability, absolute, or near absolute numbers like 90%ish base chances ought to disappear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.
Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

It's also a bit of a narrative/world problem, why are they so arbitrarily good at attacks, for being 0-level? All previous editions you could beak down a monster's to hit (a few exceptions, like in 5th Ed, the Will'o'Wisp, etc), so even though they are built differently than PCs in most editions, the numbers still add up.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Paizo has to please both these guys...

Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.

Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.

As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.

Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.

As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.

The problems with that are

A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.

I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.

I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.

Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.

It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.

A fight where you always hit, but can be oneshotted in turn, is terrible.

It's exactly the rocket tag pf2 wants to eliminate.

50/50 baseline allows for epicness, tactics,...

i have to disagree there: the entire point of being good at something (be it fighting, magic, or skills) is to be, well, actually good at it. a certain level of reliability is to be expected of talented and experienced people (again, be it fighting, magic, or skills)

a coinflip is not good. especially not a coinflip that you have to build towards ACTUALLY being a coinflip, rather than less than one (in the case of characters who are not at that coinflip baseline that things are balanced around (see: enemy AC is built with an optimized fighter in mind, rather than the majority of classes that have to try and keep up with them).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.

And then we get the million threads about "my specialized character can't do anything outside his specialization".

Personally I feel that a base of 50-50 against same level opponents is perfectly fine,
One of the goals of this edition is to reduce the rocket tag combat, but it seem that some of the people requiring higher to hit base values want exactly that.
"I win initiative, the enemy get to do nothig and I win the fight."
For them it can be fun, for me it is annoying and boring,

Is not that different if you need to be specialized to even hit that 50/50. It means where you are not specialized you dont even need to bother trying.


AndIMustMask wrote:
shroudb wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Paizo has to please both these guys...

Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.

Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.

As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.

Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.

As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.

The problems with that are

A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.

I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.

I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.

Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.

It's still a threat. It can toast you or rip you apart with it's attack line. But you can also hit back. In this example, I simply think a fighter should be good at fighting, and reliability is far and away the most important factor in that. Versatility is secondary to reliability.

A fight where you always hit, but can be oneshotted in turn, is terrible.

It's exactly the rocket tag pf2 wants to eliminate.

50/50 baseline allows

...

Hitting an ancient red dragon IS really good.

A level 15 can't do it.

You need to be a hero already to battle it out with a Balor. And it'll be a gruesome battle to win, not a trivial, time gated endeavour (I hit each round for X, in 5 rounds I win)

Again, 50/50 STARTING chances is far, FAR from coin flip. Tactics give an easy 10%+ boost, buffs another 10,debuffs another 10,and suddenly you're looking at 80% for the 1st hit.

But it takes tactics, teamwork, and work to reach that.

If we had starting 80% chances why bother to lose actions to bring that up to 90%,an extra full attack at 60% would always win. And down the drain all teamwork goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I find it a lot more fun when every attack from my fighter who is specialized in combat does something, but I am happy to see that they have given fighters a lot of ways for that to happen without it just being a question of hitting with every attack. Especially since hitting with every attack is what made full attack actions in PF1 predictable and boring.

They have accomplished this by adding rider effects to different press actions and even the ability to do minimum damage on a miss. This is a way for specialization to matter without being dependent on bonuses that would break the game because they give you a 40% chance of a critical hit.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It's also a bit of a narrative/world problem, why are they so arbitrarily good at attacks, for being 0-level? All previous editions you could beak down a monster's to hit (a few exceptions, like in 5th Ed, the Will'o'Wisp, etc), so even though they are built differently than PCs in most editions, the numbers still add up.

I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this. Their to-hit is no better than a 1st level Fighter (and no better than a 2nd level one for 1st level monsters). You can assume that the difference between a level 0 creature and a 2nd level one involves a lot more defensive training than offensive training and go from there. Works fine for me, anyway.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The "problem" is that we define same level opponent differently.

For me a same level opponent is someone as competent as you, so a one vs. one fight with him has a 50% chance of victory for both parties.

For the guys arguing that a 70% chance of hitting is too low a same level opponent should be someone that they can kill with no trouble in a 1 vs. 1 fight.

The current edition seem to see a same level opponent as a hard opponent in a 1 vs. 1 fight, PF1 lately was well away from that paradigma.
To me it seem easier for the players to accept a paradigma of "when battling vs a equal number of same level opponents, you have a starting 50% chance of winning" than is, for the developers, to keep interesting (in the long run) a game where, with the initial rules, the players have a 95% chance of winning a same level fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
For the guys arguing that a 70% chance of hitting is too low a same level opponent should be someone that they can kill with no trouble in a 1 vs. 1 fight.

No: it's someone they think they should be able to hit with little trouble. There's no reason to assume the person who wants that also wants easy kills unless they've said so.

If Paizo decided to boost accuracy (so there are fewer frustrating rounds where the character achieves nothing), perhaps by knocking off a couple of AC from every monster, they could simultaneously boost enemy HP, or reduce melee damage per hit, so difficulty balance and combat length remain as they were.

Of course, this could then lead to people complaining, "Enemies can survive too many hits for my tastes..."


I too feel that, currently, the second and third attack are not relevant enough. I believe giving the martial classes a total of +1 to hit every 5 levels would not hurt the game at all; in fact, it would make it more enjoyable and strategic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Unicore wrote:

Personally, I find it a lot more fun when every attack from my fighter who is specialized in combat does something, but I am happy to see that they have given fighters a lot of ways for that to happen without it just being a question of hitting with every attack. Especially since hitting with every attack is what made full attack actions in PF1 predictable and boring.

They have accomplished this by adding rider effects to different press actions and even the ability to do minimum damage on a miss. This is a way for specialization to matter without being dependent on bonuses that would break the game because they give you a 40% chance of a critical hit.

Curious, how exactly does 40% crit break the game? I mean the exact numerical reason.

When I crunched my numbers, I came to the opposite conclusion, that martial characters specifically ought to be able to crit more reliably and trigger their critical effects, this is what they were selling us. Letting them have it all the time throws the math off, otherwise we will get stagnant boring fights like 3.x. The problem is the damage numbers are so high that your minimum attack has a lot of value still, as far as playing the game goes. (Double Slice is the feat that maximizes this) Since there are a lot of abilities that trade actions for damage, those damage buffs do not compare to making another attack, because the crit range is that much lower than my chance to just land a second hit.

Policing people into not playing that way is not the solution. Making those primary attacks more valuable so that it's worth using your abilities is a much more attractive solution. Feint is the standard.

Resurrection post


3 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
I too feel that, currently, the second and third attack are not relevant enough. I believe giving the martial classes a total of +1 to hit every 5 levels would not hurt the game at all; in fact, it would make it more enjoyable and strategic

It's basically what we had in PF1, if you were an 11th level fighter, your 3rd attack would be at -10 to hit. But now we have the ability at level 1.

Instead of attacking with your third attack, you're supposed to be doing something more tactical. Like raise a shield, MOVE, intimidate, cast a spell, etc.


master_marshmallow wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Unicore wrote:

Personally, I find it a lot more fun when every attack from my fighter who is specialized in combat does something, but I am happy to see that they have given fighters a lot of ways for that to happen without it just being a question of hitting with every attack. Especially since hitting with every attack is what made full attack actions in PF1 predictable and boring.

They have accomplished this by adding rider effects to different press actions and even the ability to do minimum damage on a miss. This is a way for specialization to matter without being dependent on bonuses that would break the game because they give you a 40% chance of a critical hit.

Curious, how exactly does 40% crit break the game? I mean the exact numerical reason.

When I crunched my numbers, I came to the opposite conclusion, that martial characters specifically ought to be able to crit more reliably and trigger their critical effects, this is what they were selling us. Letting them have it all the time throws the math off, otherwise we will get stagnant boring fights like 3.x. The problem is the damage numbers are so high that your minimum attack has a lot of value still, as far as playing the game goes. (Double Slice is the feat that maximizes this) Since there are a lot of abilities that trade actions for damage, those damage buffs do not compare to making another attack, because the crit range is that much lower than my chance to just land a second hit.

Policing people into not playing that way is not the solution. Making those primary attacks more valuable so that it's worth using your abilities is a much more attractive solution. Feint is the standard.

Resurrection post

thing is, after running the numbers on high level fighters, double slice and crits is not the way to go if you just want damage.

for pure damage, nothing beats (so far in my tests) two-handed forceful weapon with steady strike.

compounding on that, giving extra ccuracy, making two-handers crit that much more, would require a DRASTIC reduction in actual damage to keep the numbers even.

Even worse, there are weapon with nearly 4x critical multipliers (picks have around 3.7-3.5x due to fatal and their crit spec effect) and higher accuracy would just lead every martial to become a miner to do insane crit damage (it's already high chance to crit on the 1st strike already)


Yeah, you'd get more chances you actually use those features which means something other than greatswords critting to obtain flat footed +2 buffs to keep on critting don't ruin the game.

You state the solution as if it were the problem.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Yeah, you'd get more chances you actually use those features which means something other than greatswords critting to obtain flat footed +2 buffs to keep on critting don't ruin the game.

You state the solution as if it were the problem.

I didn't state any solution as any problem.

If they decide for higher accuracy they would need to lower the damage.
I don't mind that.
it'll just be (imo) the same outcome with different flavor.

I just posted the numbers that point out that higher accuracy (dual wielding) is actually lower damage than simply high base damage and low accuracy atm (steady strike and forceful being the king here)


shroudb wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Yeah, you'd get more chances you actually use those features which means something other than greatswords critting to obtain flat footed +2 buffs to keep on critting don't ruin the game.

You state the solution as if it were the problem.

I didn't state any solution as any problem.

If they decide for higher accuracy they would need to lower the damage.
I don't mind that.
it'll just be (imo) the same outcome with different flavor.

I just posted the numbers that point out that higher accuracy (dual wielding) is actually lower damage than simply high base damage and low accuracy atm (steady strike and forceful being the king here)

I have playtest data to corroborate this.

The barbarian titan mauler ability is old power attack. Sluggish 1 is an attack penalty, and barbarians have the same BAB as wizards at the level we were at. The bonus damage was consistent and the barbarian felt very fulfilled.

I'm hopeful that we can find a middle ground where you get to choose between styles that focus on crits with more dice, less numbers, and builds that focus on better numbers less crits. Figure out where the graphs cross. There's the spot.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It's also a bit of a narrative/world problem, why are they so arbitrarily good at attacks, for being 0-level? All previous editions you could beak down a monster's to hit (a few exceptions, like in 5th Ed, the Will'o'Wisp, etc), so even though they are built differently than PCs in most editions, the numbers still add up.
I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this.

Right on, cool, so it would seem you are into your average goblin being a more skilled and accurate warrior than a 1st-level Human Fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
I too feel that, currently, the second and third attack are not relevant enough. I believe giving the martial classes a total of +1 to hit every 5 levels would not hurt the game at all; in fact, it would make it more enjoyable and strategic

It's basically what we had in PF1, if you were an 11th level fighter, your 3rd attack would be at -10 to hit. But now we have the ability at level 1.

Instead of attacking with your third attack, you're supposed to be doing something more tactical. Like raise a shield, MOVE, intimidate, cast a spell, etc.

I agree generally, however the attack bonus vs AC is lower for most characters in 2e, compared to 1e, across all levels. Now, the change to criticals can somewhat account for this, but it still creates for situations where the first hit feels too inaccurate. From what I've examined, this comparative effect seems strongest at higher levels (where martials have traditionally never been that great), but it still has the effect, throughout the game that you fail on more rolls than you might expect at any given level, and you fail especially more at your first attack at higher levels, far more than you would expect from PF1e.

Now, I don't necessarily think that the latter is more of a problem, compared to the effects that might arise without it, as I haven't had the time to see the degree that it would break the math in the new edition, but I think the former would be something wise to fix, by reducing the base AC ignoring level, and adjusting HP to account for a general rise in crits.


Xenocrat wrote:
Cellion wrote:

Furthermore, by max level the heroism buff is granting a +3 conditional to attack rolls for every party member.

One party member per 8th level spell slot. There is no multi target version.

Cellion wrote:


Since I got ninja'd by Xenocrat, here's another bit of info: Although enemy saves start eclipsing caster DCs, a caster built for delivering ranged attack rolls (starting w/ 16 DEX and maxing it, spell dueling wand to get item bonuses, casting true strike with your 3rd action each round) benefits from all the aforementioned buffs and debuffs and therefore ends up with exceptional accuracy vs. TAC. They can reach what is effectively 95% hit rate, 65% crit rate by leveraging true strike.

Let's take a maxed out 20th level (easy to calculate, and the designers consistently keep the same progression up and down the level curve) Wizard.

+20 level
+5 Dex (generous by 1 point)
+3 Proficiency
+4 item
+3 conditional (Heroism or max Inspire Heroics from an ally, generous)
+2 flat footed

+37 total

Level 20 TAC ranges from 40-42, so a to hit of 80-90%, 30-40% crit, with true strike you have 96-99% chance to hit, 51-64% to hit.

But if your Dex is only 18 and you don't have a Heroism or Bard buff (you can't do this yourself) you're looking at +33 bonus, 60-70% to hit, 10-20% to crit, true strike takes you to 84-91% to hit, 19-36% chance to crit.

If you take away flat footed, which also will generally require some allied assistance, you're down to a +31 bonus, 50-60% to hit, 5-10% crit, true strike gives you a 75-84% to hit, 7.75-19% chance to crit.

So with some help and intense resource expenditures (attribute and gold/magic item level) you can have a very good chance, but as soon as that falls off your chances of crits plunge. And given that the best ranged touch spells require Fortitude saves, which these enemies are very good at, you really want and need those crits.

Where are you getting an item bonus to hit with a spell?


Spell Duelist's Wand gives up to +4 item bonus to ranged spell attacks, Spell Duelist's Gloves gives up to +4 item bonus to non-weapon touch attacks.

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Accuracy in General too Low for My Tastes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion